Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.
People sure did spend a lot of time picking apart every small detail, plot hole, inconsistency or just dopey maneuver in STAR TREK last week; let's see if these same people bother to do the same with the second big-screen adaptation of author Dan Brown's Robert Langdon stories, ANGELS & DEMONS. My guess is nobody will for two reasons, and one of them isn't "because the film's plot is flawless." The first reason is that nobody cares as much about Langdon's exploits as they do about the folks of the Trek universe. Second, ANGELS & DEMONS isn't nearly as ambitious or adventurous as Trek or 75 percent of the other films I see in a given summer. It's not the kind of film people bother analyzing ad nauseum, which I guess brings me back to reason one. There wasn't a moment in this film's entire 2-hour 20-minute length that I didn't know what most of the bigger-picture secrets were in this story. I knew who were going to be revealed as the real hidden bad guys and what kind of treachery they were up do. Not that the movie doesn't have its share of lofty intentions and a great cast to give those intentions weight and significance; it does. But at some point early in the film, I stopped caring what happened to most of the characters or even whether Vatican City was lost to the world with the help of a bomb created out of antimatter. I guess it's the lapsed Catholic in me.
Let's get into some of the performance first, because at this point you either know the basic plot or you don't because--all together now--you don't care. Robert Langdon is the least interesting character from an actor that has spent his entire career creating memorable and interesting characters, even when the elements that made them so weren't in the script. Langdon uses history to solve ancient puzzles. I'm sure in print, reading the innermost thought processes of Langdon is fascinating, but this massive amount of brain activity does not translate well to a visual medium. Tom Hanks spends a lot of time vocalizing his thoughts as he combs through the Vatican archives (long kept away from his prying eyes because of what happened in THE DA VINCI CODE). But here's the thing, Langdon is following a trail that has been in existence for hundreds of years. If the ancient order of the Illuminati changed even one small detail of this path (which they easily could have), Langdon's smarts would be of no use. This deduction led me to believe that the powers-that-be wanted Langdon to find the bomb in a very specific manner, which would lead into a series of predictable events, blah, blah, blah. This is how I figure shit out; it's not that tough.
I was happy to see director Ron Howard cast a great group of non-Americans in the key roles, including Danish superstar Nikolaj Lie Kaas as the Illuminati terrorist who kidnaps the four cardinals in line for the Papacy and plants the bomb guaranteed to decimate Vatican City and a great deal of Rome. Also on hand are the always-hammy and reliable Stellan Skarsgard as the head of the Swiss Guard that protects the Pope, Armin Mueller-Stahl as the cardinal in charge of running the process to select a new pope after the most recent one has died, Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer (from Munich) as one of the scientists who created the antimatter device, and Ewan McGregor as the young priest who was the late Pope's personal assistant and also seems to be the man in the Vatican with the greatest knowledge of Illuminati lore. McGregor is actually pretty great in this role, especially in an impassioned monologue where he pleads with the cardinals to abandon finding a new Pope temporarily so they can evacuate the Vatican for safety. But if it seems slightly strange that someone of McGregor's caliber would get caught playing second fiddle to Hanks or play such a bland, nice-guy character, well, you'd be on the right path.
One thing I did like about the film is that it all takes place in less than a day, and most of the film takes place in a five-hour window, so the sense of immediacy and urgency is sustained and impressive. I half expected to see a loudly ticking digital clock in the middle of the screen every so often, but alas it was not to be. I know that Howard and crew weren't allowed to film in or around the Vatican, but it sure feels like they were. The crowd sequences are among the most impressive; I'm still trying to figure out how and where they managed to create such massive crowds through which the characters run. But the film's biggest drawback is something I alluded to earlier: I just didn't care what happened to any of these people, especially not the four kidnapped cardinals that are getting killed every hour leading up to the big bomb detonating.
Not wanting to give away anything three or four of you might still find suspenseful, I won't go into any detail about the huuuuge problems and lapses in judgment and sense that ANGELS & DEMONS makes (beginning and ending with the fact that if Langdon was never a factor in these events, the outcome would have been exactly the same). That said, I was far from loathing this effort, simply because things never stopped moving long enough for me to notice the time passing or to really contemplate just how natural-born dumb this movie was at times. There are times when I laughed out loud at some of the filmmakers were trying to pull--a sequence involving a helicopter comes to mind--and I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to. Still, the film's consistent and repeated moments of audacity kept me just amused enough by the proceedings to never look at my watch and still get caught up in some of the better chases scenes...plus I just wanted to see if they really blew up the Vatican.
ANGELS & DEMONS is a top-to-bottom mess, but it's the kind of mess I know how to deal with, process, and still walk out feeling like my time wasn't completely wasted. This is not a recommendation, but it's far from an outright condemnation. I think we know each other well enough for both of us to know whether you are, for some reason, predisposed to like films like this. I am not, but I can appreciate some of its finer points without really enjoying the experience as a whole. May is filled with great releases still to come; hold out for some of those instead.
-- Capone
capone@aintitcoolmail.com

because I have no intention in seeing it. Didn't read the books, didn't see the previous one, and couldn't care less about this one, (especially because Ewan's liable to give me SW prequel flash-backs). Still somewhat excited for T:S, Drag Me to Hell, and Whatever Works, though.

There is no such thing...just don't make the fucking movie if you don't have a good script to begin with. Well that means delaying hundreds of millions of dollars in box office revenue by people who don't care (or who arenot smart enough to notice), but you get my point. Anyway, I tried to read this book and bailed on it because it was so boring, so I sure wouldn't consider the movie. I'm glad it is sucky.

... to like "films like these". I really enjoyed the movie last evening. It's great pseudo-historical pulp fiction combined with impressive production values. After tons and tons of origin stories I was really pleased with this one (they actually make other movies nowadays?!). Have fun hating on a movie you haven't even seen.

Ye gods, this sounds horrible. Never read the book. Never saw The Da Vinci Code either but I read *that* novel and promptly threw it at the wall after finishing, the history was so lousy. And now you tell us the same dude's been messin' around with particle physics? Ugh...

The books read away like it's nothing. They are real page turners (in the literal sense, since you only have to glance over a page to find out what is happening - it is like a bad soap opera or so where it doesn't matter if you miss a few weeks of episodes) & any Dan Brown book can be read in a day - easily. Why? Because it is mindless drivel. There is absolutely no requirement of the audience needed to think since everything is spelled out for the reader. One cannot expect a good movie based on one of these novels since the source material is weak. Only if the basic idea is kept & Talented Writers are involved there is a chance of a half decent movie. Lots of talent involved, all of whom deserve a better script.

Y'know, I have yet to make a decision about seeing a film based on what reviewers say. I make up my mind based on whether I think he film will entertain me. It's pretty safe to say that probably around 98% of the time, I get my money's worth. I wait until AFTER I see a film to rip it to shreds-if it so deserves. And as myself and many others have said many times before, fault can be found in just about anything. When it comes to movies, I think many so-called film-fans are just too fucking negative. Just try to enjoy the movie for a change instead of spending your time finding fault with it. A great many of the films that are torn to pieces on websites like this are actually not all that bad. They're just easy targets for bored individuals who have nothing better to do with their time than spread their blankets of negativity over everything. Try to have fun, for Christ's sake. Cuz I've got some sad news for you. None of you are Roger Ebert, as much as you might think you are. Nothing is perfect-including motion pictures-and very few ever reach the true pinnacle of excellence. If you can't take them for what they are, then save your money and stay home. Don't ruin it for everyone else. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if negativity is your forte, then perhaps you ought to find a new hobby.

Reads to me that your spoiler free review just told me that Ewan McGregor is a (if not THE)suprise bad guy in this movie. If that turns out to be true, you sir are a fucking worthless cunt of the very highest order and the very lowest shit-dribbling moron in a site that seems to rejoice in allowing shit dribbling morons to write reviews. <p> But if that's not what you were trying to convey, then sorry, my mistake and I love you.

in the first fucking paragraph? Jesus fucking christ. We've all endured the endless shitstorm of pro-star trek cock gobbling. We all know you'd swallow the semen of anyone associated with it. Give it a fucking rest.

Sometimes to get a little info on the movie. But if it's on here, then it's mainly to have a slight chuckle or a big laugh. I don't mind the spoilers either. For eight-and-a-half-years I reviewd films for a local radio station. Before I started doing it, I made myself a golden rule. I knew that many of the films I would be reviewing would be things that I normally would not have seen. But I told myself to be as open-minded as possible about each of them. My bottom line was, if I was entertained by the film, then it was worth seeing, as simple as that. You can find fault in any film, but what's the point. That's not going to change anything. I guess it's a way of venting for some.

For all of you who can't handle spoilers, here's a mind-blowing revelation for you. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO READ THIS STUFF. C'mon, if you read pieces on this site, then you ought to know what to expect. If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of Harry's kitchen!

...I can't believe AICN'ers could crawl so far up their own asses that when they finally get the movie they've all been whining about all these years they still find ridiculous reasons not to like it. These people really don't deserve "Star Trek".<br><br>I stayed away from from the "Star Trek" TB precisely because I didn't want to watch this happen in slow motion. Thanks for not letting me down assholes.

You got THAT right, brother. I did check out the TREK talkbacks, and the majority of it was vile, hate-spewing nonsense. Tht's pretty ironic considering the overwhelmingly positive response TREK has gotten out there in the real world. I loved it, and none of the shit pouring out of these negative wave-riders is gonna change that. It just goes to show how wrong these fools can be.

I can't agree with you about ANGELS AND DEMONS, though. I think it looks like a competent enough effort. I trust Ron Howard and Tom Hanks enough for a good time at the local cinema either tonight or tomorrow. C'mon people, for everything can't be THE GODFATHER. Just enjoy it for what it is...a lightweight piece of summer entertainment. I'm not expecting anything groundbreaking, and I'm sure as Hell not judging ANGELS AND DEMONS against STAR TREK. Apples and oranges, man.

Fair call. I haven't seen ST and am therefore not casting my opinion on it. <p>What I am questioning is the relevance of ST to A&D. Why does a comparison to ST need to be made in a shitty Dan Brown adaptation? <p>We have endured a cavalcade of group masturbation over ST on this site. There is a TB dedicated to it so why does it need to be name dropped in this review?

It's not a new thing, but every film that comes out between the beginning of May and the end of August is automatically shoehorned into the category SUMMER MOVIES. And, for better or worse, they often get compared against each other, even whenthey have absolutely nothing in common except for the season of their release. ANGELS AND DEMONS has probably about as much in common with STAR TREK as LAND OF THE LOST will have in common with PUBLIC ENEMIES. But just wait and see. Some ignorant numbskull will probably find a way to compare those two movies as well. Ah, well, such is the life of a movie geek...

Ron Howard is a filmmaker. He's no more a hack than Jim Cameron, Ridley Scott or Steven Spielberg. Forget abour his child/teen acting days. This guy has managed to make a career out of directing many types of films. I may not have liked all of them, but I think it's safe to say that none of them were out-and-out crap. Give the guy some credit.

SPIDER-MAN 3 was a carwreck of a movie. I've heard Raimi blame that on studio suits meddling with the story, i.e. forcing him to insert Venom into the storyline to satisfy all the whiny fanboys. That's a legitimate enough explanation. But after the stunning SPIDER-MAN 2, you'd think that Raimi would have been able to throw his creative weight around a bit more than he seemed to have done with #3. His new horror click looks pretty cool, especially when you compare it to the stinking garbage that fills the horror genre these days. And now that SPIDER-MAN 4 is in preproduction, I'm hoping he can get back to what made his first two SPIDEY efforts so damn cool.

...because everyone gets to throw rocks and shit at us, and we have to stand there and take it, just like Jesus. Try dumping all kinds of foul garbage on Scientology, or Mormonism, and see what happens.

if everyone would dump all of their foul garbage on every existing religion. Then, hopefully, they would be buried under everyone's stinking refuse where they belong, and we would no longer need to hear about them or be bothered by them. Hell, maybe then we'd REALLY get world peace. Oh yeah, and while you're at it, bury the Republicans along with them. Then you'd be doing everyone a big favor.

. . . the REAL Priory of Sion (founded AND dissolved in 1956 as a great big hoax, according to Wikipedia) or the REAL Illuminati (founded in 1776 in Bavaria, and dissolved in 1785, again according to Wikipedia). I think stories about how small groups of upper-class twits getting together to wear robes and drink copious amounts of wine somehow became the basis for worldwide conspiracy theories would make a ripping good yarn.

I respect peoples opinion on it, but I just could not get into it. It had a good cast, and it was o.k. in parts, but overall, it's a dissapointment. I don't get all the gushing. This however, looks about as fun as being ass raped by an elephant. And for people calling Ron Howard a hack...yeah. In the hands of lesser director, Frost/Nixon could have been a real snoozer. That movie turned out to be one of the great movies of the last 5 years. But that's just my opinion.

Well, c an sum it up by saying that I'm old School Spider-Man. I have never liked the character of Venom, and of the two SPIDER-MAN 3 villains, I think his was the weakest, both in character and look. I wasn't very fond of how the Sandman character was portrayed, either-I just didn't buy the sick daughter-sympathy angle that they forced on the character. He should have been 100% mean. But Venom was just too cartoony and lame. I will say that if they had picked just one villain to go with, I would have been happier. They just spread themselves plotwise. It was kind of the same problem that the BATMAN series suffered from. Every sequel had to have more and more villains to the point of cartoony overkill. Mr. Raimi, if you're reading this, please, stick with what works, and don't let studio suits strong-arm you into going against your better judgment.

Wrong on ALL counts fuckwad. But It would be a real pleasure to go all Archie Bunker on your weak-brained limp-wristed ass. Look at the facts, you stupid fuck. Religion is the main cause on most of the problems-i.e. WARS-that mankind has suffered from throughout history. Religion is a crutch for the weak minded followers who don't have enough moxie to make up their own minds about things. Instead they let someone else tell them how to think and to act, what to like and dislike, and so on and so forth. So go to church on Sunday, dumbfuck. Personally, I find more peace staying home and worshipping my pillow.

The problem isn't religion. The problem is people actively disobeying the tenets of their so-called faith. I won't go so far as to argue that the solution is more religion, but again, the atheist utopia is as big of a myth as the one in Revelation.

I've been waiting for someone to bring back a proper supernatural element to the horror film genre, and I'm really looking forward to "Drag Me to Hell," but the Summer movie box-office is all about the brain-free CGI "bigness" factor and "Drag Me to Hell" looks wondefully old school in that regard. It's also opening the same weekend as "Up" as sort of counter programing. It's going to be nearly DOA at the box-office. It would likely have been a big weekend hit in October, but it'll open 3rd or 4th in May and quickly get trampled by "Terminator," "Transformers" and other "bigness" crap film fans will like less but see more. Reviews won't matter, as flocks of morons will go see
G.I. Joe" instead. It's going to be another "Grindhouse" type of slap in the face to hardcore film fans.

Watched it this afternoon. It's way better than either the source novel or THE DA VINCI CODE movie. That's not necessarily a recommendation, though. The plot's pretty see-through and makes little real sense, like Capone says. But you do get decent production values, a starry cast doing their thing (Armin Mueller-Stahl and Stellan Starsgard alone are worth a couple of hours of your time), and a few okay thrills. Sure, all it amounts to is a rewrite of BLACK SUNDAY (or, if you're not familiar with that, THE SUM OF ALL FEARS - even Tom Clancy's source novel mentions Thomas Harris's original as a way of apology for stealing the plot outright). It's hokey nonsense, and should be seen as that. Take in an afternoon show, but don't make it the centrepiece of your weekend.

Filling people's heads (brainwashing, really) with childish nonsense that somehow their actual lives are a dress rehearsal from some illusory afterlife in a magical space castle in the clouds is what drives people completely insane and makes them willing to do all sorts of psychotic, hateful nonsense in the name of Santa Claus, I mean, Odin, I mean Zeus, I mean the Giant Flying Spaghetti monster.

Where's the danger? When was the last time a crusade was called? The Iraq War was declared unjust by the pope. The large majority of Muslims do not support jihad.<p>
Right now the biggest problem the world faces is the insensitivity of the world's "elite" (Americans, Europeans) to the world's "suffering" (Africans, some Asians). Religion can help mitigate or eliminate that insensitivity if used correctly.

Angels and Demons takes place before The Da Vinci Code, first and foremost. Secondly, the film is really good. It may not have the insight on Langdons character that the book did, which ultimately bogs it down a bit, but its still a good film none the less. The book was everything The Da Vinci Code wasn't. The sad part is is it seems as if 90% of you just don't fucking get it. You are just the dumb majority of the worlds society.

I know quite a lot about religion. And history. Those who decry religion are the ones that are naive. There are thousands of churches that provide food to homeless people. How is that evil? Missionaries go to African villages to help build sewers. That's a bad thing?<p>
Can this be done without religion? Of course. But religion motivates, for both good or ill. In the world today, religion is motivating far more good than ill.

...It's history before this movie is the output of hundreds of talented individuals over the course of forty years, that's impacted hundreds of thousands of lives. Damn straight it's going to be scrutinized.<p>
ANGELS AND DEMONS is merely the output of one flaky conspiracy theorist posing as a novelist because his ideas are so bunk.

V arious religions might hand out food to the starving, medicine to the sick, ad infinitum. But that HARDLY covers up all of the other things they have done or are doing. And I'm not pinpointing one or two religions. It is religion as a whole that is the problem here. The fundamentals of religion are antiquated. This is the 21st century, and its time to wake up and see this. May do, but many don't. Y'know, one of the funniest things about these so-called "believers is that when you get into any kind of discussion with them and show them facts about allof the dark and evil, negative things that religion as a whole has been responsible for, and show them facts to prove it, they start spewing some of their nonsensicle pablum to try to talk their way around the facts. Religion is a disease, ladies and gentlemen, more deadly than swine flu or AIDS. A CURE NEEDS TO BE FOUND!!!

You're right, the line-up this Summer is the worst in recent memory for anyone mentally or physically over 12 years old. All the tentpole pictures are things I could care less about. Did people REALLY like the first "Transformers"? Really? Not just your 5 year old kids? "Terminator" looks just like "Transformers." "Star Trek" and "Up" look like the only bright spots in a dark season, but last Summer was such a great Summer for film fans that this year just looks depressing by comparison.

Not everyone involved with religion is evil or bad. Some are just too easily influenced. There are good Muslims and bad Muslims, good Catholics and bad Catholics, god Hindus and Bad Hindus, good Christians and Bad Christians, good Scientologists and bad Scientologists. Mormons, well...anybody who tells me I can't drink a Coke is FUCKED UP!

I am a special effects junkie. And while I appreciated good movies just as much as anyone else, I'm always casting my discering stare at the film's with the visual effects. And while many VFX-heavy productions-including many that are coming out this summer I'm sure-rely on the visual bang a lot more than they do the story, occassionally one like IRON MAN, THE DARK KNIGHT or STAR TREK slips through, and everyone is happy. But, for me, if the FX are good, then I got my money's worth. And I'm not 12 years old, I'm 47.

May 15, 2009, 1:40 p.m. CST

by Spamgelus

I love how people call Star Trek "over-hyped" simply because people like it.

...In the book it turns out that antimatter can be easily created in larger amounts do to the intercession of (gulp) god! Also Robert Langdon, sort of like Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner as Elektra, has the unexplained ability to jump from great heights and sort of glide down, instead of just plummeting down to a horrific death like the rest of us. (I mean, I can't imagine diving out of a helicopter 1000 feet up holding only a rain tarp to break my fall and have the result being anything else but street pizza. Yeah, yeah, he landed in a river. Bullshit! Hitting water at terminal velocity is equivalent to hitting concrete.) Also St. Peter's Tomb is not located in a vast underground labyrinth containing buried buildings from the days of the Roman Empire. The church did find "what the believed to be" St. Peter's tomb beneath the floor in St. Peters Basilica (sorry, no Indie Jones-esque underground city) and "though many bones have been found at the site of the second-century shrine, as the result of two campaigns of archaeological excavation, Pope Pius XII stated in December 1950 that none could be confirmed to be Saint Peter's with absolute certainty".

I disagree with you about Star Trek: I thought it was a fun time at the movies and what makes the movie work, despite its weak-ass script, is the on screen banter and chemistry between the actors.
<br>
<br>
I *do* agree with you though that this year's slate of Summer Movies is one of the weakest I that I can remember. I'm sorry but I just can't drum up any excitement for Night at the Museum 2, Transformers 2 and Terminator 4. The only real bright spot may be Public Enemies, and that's it. It's a very decidedly 'meh' movie season.

There are quite a few people out there who think that if they see more than two commercials on TV advertising a film, or an endcap with merchandise from a film, then said film is over-hyped. If you want a true example of over-hyped, then look no further than HANNAH MONTANA and its ilk. Now THERE'S some flushable turds floating uselessly in the bowl!

While it's true that some effects work is better than others, Ididn't haver any gripes with the fx in STAR TREK. If anything, to me anyway, it looked more realistic. The only real gripe I had was with the look of Nero's ship. It was reminiscent of something from BABYLON 5. I wanted it to be more menacing, and more original looking. Of course, I haven't seen a lot of real battles in space, so I'm only offering the realism angle as my opinion. But I found ILM's work on this new TREK to be top notch.

...I'm more excited over the fact that Scorsese is shooting SINATRA next, than I am for any flick being released this Summer. Although I like Dicaprio, and I know Scorsese love him as well, hopefully he doesn't get the title roll. He's not right for it.

Ol' Marty bopy needs to get out of his DiCaprio rut. Not that he isn't a good actor, but he isn't right for everything. When I heard about the SINATRA film, all I could think was, "Who the HEll are they ever gonna get to play that guy without it coming off as a cheap impersonation."

May 15, 2009, 1:52 p.m. CST

by Spamgelus

I saw quality all over that screen. And if you couldn't follow the SFX then get some glasses. It was all clear to me. And "extreme retarded brain-numbing imbecility," while colorful, smacks of over-the-top hatred. The kind that makes people not take you seriously because you sound like a child screaming at his least favorite book.

The guy should be a lock to play a scotch-swilling Martin. Maybe Adam Sandler for Joey Bishop and Kate Beckinsale for Shirley McClane, if the emphasis is on the Rat Pack days. Man, this movie could be really great.

The intertubes are reporting (actually Entertainment Weekly) that Universal wants Johnny Depp to play Frank, while Scorsese was planning on offering the part to Dicaprio (*rolls eyes at Scorsese's Dicaprio man-crush*)

Seriously, it seems that a movie cannot even get the green light nowadays unless it goes out of its way to show contempt toward religious institutions. They must be "exposed" as evil and corrupt for the picture to get made.<p>
Yes, I am sure the Vatican is a hotbed of political intrigue, but you'd think it was the pit of darkness itself the way it is portrayed in movies.<p>
Why doesn't Hollywood devote its time on properties that don't suck? Dan Brown is a hack writer. His books are garbage, and these movies are too. I am so ashamed of Ron Howard and Tom Hanks for making these truly lousy movies.<p>
I wonder how long it will be until Hollywood makes a movie that denounces the people who do a lot more to ruin our lives than churches ever could - namely, the assholes running the country.<p>
Let's see an "expose" movie about the current crop in Congress and the White House. They are shitting all over the Constitution and spending us into oblivion, never mind the irrevocable damage they are doing to our future generations.<p>
But please, instead, go watch this anti-Catholic tirade as it will undoubtedly make you feel so much better about your existence. Be sure to blame the church when you get your pink slip from your boss. 'Cause obviously it's all the Pope's fault!

More than 100 million people died under Communism in the last century alone.<p>
Nothing to do with religion there.<p>
Please don't begin to equate secularism with some kind of cure all.<p>
Human nature is the problem

"Let's see an expose' movie about the current crop in Congress and the White House. They are shitting all over the Constitution and spending us into oblivion, never mind the irrevocable damage they are doing to our future generations." Care to explain how the Obama Administration is "shitting all over the Constitution", you lunatic? Give me one example. Just one. Something that's real, not one of your demented Republicunt fantasies.

There is no getting "religion off the hook".The point is Communism was violently anti-religious and look what it produced. Pinbacks implication (and subsequent posters agreement) that burying religion clears the way to world peace is laughaable and childish. <p>
Wouldn't you agree??<p>
There is no question that most religious people have irrational religious views. But many people today think Communism was a great idea handled poorly. Christians who committed evil in the name of Christianity are never regarded by these same people as having perverted a beautiful doctrine.<p>
Being an atheist does not mean one cannot acknowledge that religion was equal parts a stabilizing factor in civilization as well as the cause of much suffering. It's not just one or the other.<p>

the Fairness Doctrine, localization of radio programming, performance fees that amount to a tax on radio stations, and other ways they are trying to screw with the First Amendment?<p>
They are threatened by conservative talk radio and are trying to come up with new ways to silence these entities once and for all. Constitution be damned.<p>
How about the Obama administration firing the CEO of GM? What in the hell is constitutional about that? For that matter, how about the idiots placing Barney Frank and other imbeciles in charge of these completely privately-held companies?<p>
You think it is constitutional for the federal government to be that powerful, that invasive into private business? Read the damn document. Educate yourself.<p>
What we are watching happen is in no way constitutional. Just because it is happening, just because no one is standing up and stopping it doesn't make it constitutional. It just means we are too lazy to stop this governmental overreaching.<p>
Another example: the Obama administration and some members of Congress are attempting to limit what health care professionals can earn. They have already begun limiting what CEOs and other private citizens can earn. Remember the contracted bonuses that were negated? How is that constitutional?<p>
Things are being forced through without the citizens getting a chance to vote. And even when they do vote on something, it is being ignored in the courts. Again, none of these things are constitutionally sound. But we allow them to happen.<p>
Hey, do you work for a company? Do you get a salary based on nothing more than time on the clock? Do you pay federal income tax? Why? Where is the law that says you must pay a federal income tax? The answer is: there isn't one.<p>
The constitution doesn't even allow for a federal income tax unless it is apportioned equally among all citizens. The system we have currently is in direct violation of the constitution. Fear of prosecution and liquidation of assets is what keeps people paying their federal income tax. Not because it is constitutionally provided for. Imagine that.<p>
Now go watch Catholics behaving badly and getting punished, like a good little neophyte.

Obama "attempting" to silence the hysterical, deluded Neo-Con propaganda, (which didn't actually happen, BTW, as there is an extremely fine line between the Republican dogma and hate-speech)? Not any worse than Bush attempting to subvert the "Liberal" NPR back in 2002, in the ethnocentric height of the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. Or did that conveniently slip your memory? The current example is not unconstitutional, BTW, and Obama's motives are far less sinister than Bush's. The government intervening in the capitalist economy? Because if they don't, we're fucked, genius. I know you Republicans are still obsessed with the US becoming "Socialist", but you can stop harping on that particular fucking fixation; the Cold War's been over for almost twenty years. I guess you didn't notice? So basically, none of the your examples hold water in the real world. You're apparently pining for the unmitigated cluster-fuck that was George W., (and Cheney, who seems really disproportionately upset that he doesn't get to torture people anymore), and I'M the neophyte. Riiiggght. Now run along and shoot some more moose from a helicopter, and while you're up there, tell Jesus and Santa Claus I say hello.

I love Special Effects too. I grew up loving Ray Harryhausen, Tom Savini, Rob Bottin, etc. During the 70s and 80s, every couple of years there was a new revolution in visual effects and we knew the names of the people inventing and contributing to the science and art of special effects. Now there is basically only one tool: CGI. There are almost no models, practical makeup is mostly CGI enhanced, creatures aren't built, they're programmed and everyone in the business is a faceless programmer. It's just harder for me to get excited about effects for the sake of effects anymore. For example, there have been almost no new techniques or revolutions in the special effects biz over the last 15 years; only the graphic resolution has gotten better, and really, I don't think CGI has really gotten much better than the dinosaurs of "Jurassic Park" in 1993.

First you're a religious expert, and now you're a political know-it-all? The Bottom line is this-you're not much of a movie geek, AND you're an arrogant, elitist asshole. Now I know the truth...YOU'RE THE REASON FOR BIRTH CONTROL!!!

was "The Missing" supposed to be? Are Native-American witch-doctors supposed to be retro or something? The films starts with a close-up of Cate Blanchett with a big shit-eating grin on her face, then pulls back to reveal she's sitting in the out-house...she reaches for the toilet paper, and the thing goes downhill from there.

When it comes to digital special effects, there hasn't been much in the way of breakthrough work. It's mostly just a lot of tweaking and experimenting trying to perfect the methods they are using. Getting a realistic look from computer generated images isn't easy, but it is doable. But it's hard to fool viewers, especially when you're dealing with things that you know aren't real from the get-go, such as battling robots, dogfighting spacecraft, monsters and dinosaurs. I think that, for the most part, FX vendors are doing the best they can. As with anything, there's always room for improvement. Just remember, they couldn't have done Gollum back in '91! I have a deep respect for the folks who do special effects.

In a little less than an hour, I'm taking off to see A&D. I just saw part of Roger Ebert's review-three stars. So I'm hoping this will be another Ron HOward film tht I will enjoy. When it comes to his movies, I've seen all of his directorial efforts since SPLASH, and I have enjoyed all but a few of the films he's made. I certainly don't have the doubts about this film that some on this talkback seem to have.

I just came back from seeing it. I liked DaVinci Code better because of the Jesus stuff, but Angels & Demons is more adventurous. My fiance liked A & D better. I don't understand why everybody trashes on these movies and books.

I say that because I am one. You guys don't get to agree. <p> But they are dumb (at least, the head of the Catholic League here in America is especially) for deeming this film as "anti-Catholic" without ever seeing it. There is certainly nothing anti-Catholic about this film.

Okay...now that I've gotten that out of my system...I just got home from viewing ANGELS AND DEMONS. First off, this film is not a mess at all. It's a very well acted, beautifully filmed movie that is fun to watch. I donm't think its great or anything, but it was well worth watching. It doesn't have the most plausible storyline, but that's not what counts. Hanks' Langdon character anchors this film, and we watch the plot unfurl through his eyes mainly, and there are a lot of twists and turns that keep you guessing until the end. I haven't read the book, so I don't know how closely this film adheres to it. What I DO know is that this movie is fast-paced, far from boring, not corny or stupid, and it doesn't play down to the viewer. If you can pay attention and keep up, then you'll like this flick. I guess there gonna do another one, and after seeing this, I don't mind at all. I pay to see Hanks and Howard do it all again. It was FUN!!!

I think the most telling comment in the review is, "...beginning and ending with the fact that if Langdon was never a factor in these events, the outcome would have been exactly the same)." <p>
That was one of the biggest problems with Indy 4 as well. The ending would have been the same if he'd never been involved. That's not what we want so see from our "heroes" and it doesn't make for good drama. It makes us feel like we've wasted our time watching the movie.<p>
That being said... I don't care to much in this case, as I have no interest in seeing this movie.

Saw Angels and Demons yesterday...or as they call it here in Germany...Illuminati. If I never would have read the book then I might have had a better time watching the movie. I know that directors and screenplay writers have to trim down to make a viable film but man some of the best things about A&D were totally left out. I wanted to see more of CERN. Especially the crazy CERN director and his tricked out wheelchair. And what about the super fast plane that CERN sends to pick up Landon? Don't even get me started on the Hassassin and him not being played by a Middle Easterner. And most important of all....I wanted to see Vittoria in those little shorts that the Vatican was all in a bunch about.

Yes, you HAVE to get this phaser! It's a proverbial blast! Most ironically, Bob Orci has restored my childhood. Fascinating! Peew!! Beeow!! <P>
I will beam my stupid ass FIL into space and watch him freeze and explode, or whatever a body does out there. Amateur begone!!

unlike the latest (so-called) STAR TREK movie, ANGELS & DEMONS actually deals with philosophical, sociological topics. STAR TREK (the shows and some of the previous movies) used to deal with such topics. that's what made STAR TREK good. hell, that's what made it STAR TREK! now, J.J. Abrams' STAR TREK simply does not have a brain. and I'm not even talking about all the scientific non-sense or the TREK-inconsistencies (Stardates, anyone?). I'm talking about SOME SORT of ethical, moral, philosophical or otherwise at least SLIGHTLY intellectual contents. there's NOTHING there. it's a dumb movie. and ANGELS & DEMONS certainly isn't. it says A LOT about important things like science, religion and the church. things that have the potential to make people THINK. and that's good.

Sorry, man, but I didn't find more wong than right with this film, or STAR TREK for that matter. Both have flaws, but, in my humble opinion, those flaws are FAR outweighed by the positives. And when I went to see them, as when I go to see ANY film, I don't expect a life-changing experience, just a couple of hourse of entertainment. Both of these films delivered that in spades. WOLVERINE, oin the other hand, has A LOT wrong with it, but we all know that, so 'nuff said!

As silly conspiracy theories goes that one was better. It also had more use for Langdon. He is a symboligist, he interprets symbols. In this movie, unlike Da Vinci, the symbols are to easy. Pretty much anyone could have interpreted the symbols for earth, air, water and fire. They didn't need him. The movie is a descent thriller, not great but not horrible. It has great locations but unless you're going to see a travel brochure, at night, you've seen all these places before in better movies. Also if the movie would have ended right after the true villain is exposed it would have been better. After this they tack on sort of a prologue that doesn't need to be there. One thing I found very interesting though. This movie has the same basic plot as The Fifth Element, in a way, they even mention a fifth element. In this case it's light or anti-matter or god. But it's basically a race to stop the evil from destroying something. In FE it's the universe here it's Vatican City. I say watch The Fifth Element and pass on this one. Da Vinci Code was more entertaining.

coz im slightly interested in the way Vaticans do it, for scientific research of course. like how do they reproduce? there are many urban legends and misconceptions about they way they reproduce so i just want to know once and for all and i hope this movie sheds some light on the issue of reproduction among Vatican species.

Communism? Religion?<p>
Each post you make is more incoherent than the last. <p>
Both you and non thinkers like LaserPants lump worldwide spiritual teachings into a nutshell of tv evangelists, Catholic priest pedophiles and jihadists and think you have it all figured out.<p>
What a lazy, narrow minded effort on your part. It must be comforting to see the world in such black and white terms.

...Since it isn't some off the wall deep fried genre picture or it doesn't have Apatow or Seth Rogan attached to it, and also it doesn't include kung fun. But it is a well done potboiler, a bunch of silliness yes, but overall, a good , if not great, thriller than has actual grown-ups as the leads. Lord knows I've seen worse movies ( let's not even get into the abysmally awful Superbad, or pure garbage like Observe And Report, fuck you) . But, the kids like to bash movies like this, so, have at it.

or effective in the least. What I mentioned in my earlier post is accurate. What the federal government is perpetrating on the private sector is a prime example of severe overreaching. It is not outlined anywhere in the Constitution. Therefore it is UNconstitutional. Just because they're getting away with it doesn't make it right. Get it?<p>
I do not know where you get the idea that I am a Bush or Cheney supporter. I am not. I have no love for those guys. In fact, I think they got us into a lot of this financial mess. They sure as hell overreached with the Patriot Act and with the original bailout plan back in September. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.<p>
What I am a fan of is seeing the government bureaucrats held accountable for their illegal actions. I am all for making sure the government, no matter who is in control of it, is following the Constitution.<p>
If we do not enforce the Constitution and keep government interference to a minimum, then we will eventually lose our liberties and freedoms - the very tenets upon which the founding fathers created the government in the first place.<p>
You are apparently either incapable of carrying on a decent and logical argument. Or maybe you're just unwilling to. Either way, you will just be part of the problem if you won't wake up to the fact that the government is breaking the law and abusing its own citizenry every day.<p>
And yes, I am speaking if the current Democrat-led government. They are making egregious errors n judgment every day and leading us toward financial and cultural collapse faster than I ever thought possible. It's stunning, and it's frightening.

has to explain to me how Langdon's involvement wouldn't have changed the outcome of the plot. You can complain about the lunacy of the "bad guy's" plan but you can't say Langdon had no effect on the outcome of that plan.

I was surprised only by how fucking talking it was. It is physically impossible for any movie to have more exposition in it. Simply terrible. Oh, and Capone's right-- I knew who the villain was from the first moment he was on the screen, based on the casting.

What a cheap, rip off ending. I want my real Illuminati movie Baledammit. The helicopter scene was pretty cool though. And the cardinals being branded and killed was very enjoyable. Why didn't Langdon tell that asshole cardinal that he knows the true descendant of Jesus? Because that would be one wicked scene. The Munich chick is damned hot, she looks like an older Bar Rafaeli. The Vatican is nothing but a fraternity of delusional deviants. What little good the Church does is far outweighed by the evils it perpetrates. Nuff said!

...as our religious counterparts.
If you are going to represent atheism, please try to do so in an intelligent way. Many of your posts contain serious spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. Perhaps English is not your first language?
As American atheists, we consider ourselves among the intellectual elite. When someone with a fifth-grade understanding of the English language goes off on a rant about how dangerous religion is whilst displaying all the linguistic prowess of a losing contestant on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader," it does not do our cause any favors.
There are other talkbackers who do a far better job pointing out the inadequacies and fallacies of religion without sounding like a twelve year-old who just finished watching Religulous for the third time. Please leave the assault on religion to them.

i hate atheists and im not even religious, i just think they are spiteful and ignorant, and they usually have bad history that made them rebel against God, because no one is born an atheist. if you believed in santa clause you believed in God. its a pity that God is less interested in ending human suffering but we shouldnt take that as an excuse to abandon our ideals and values and attack people who believe deeply in something greater than selfish life.

This is shaping up to be a very tedious summer indeed. Star Trek while ok was nothing like as great as we were led to believe. Wolverine was tragic. Angels and Demons was lazy as fuck and from the sound of it Terminator is also dodgy. Hopefully HP6 won't suck but in this climate who knows...